> > But there is no need for that.
> >
> > The name of the project is "Debian".
> > The name of the Linux distribution made by Debian is "Debian GNU/Linux".
> > The name of the Hurd distribution made by Debian will probably (?) be
> > "Debian GNU/Hurd".
> > Another distribution would have its own name, too.
>
But it will be only one distribution.
You could install several kernels and choose one of them at boot time.
Probably "potato" will have separate distributions, "Debian GNU/Linux" and
"Debian GNU/Hurd", but the future should be to integrate all the
distributions of one architecture into only one distribution.
> I like it. that way you always know the kernel you are running, but it's
> still "Debian GNU/<Kernel>". If you want every detail, please use
> "Debian GNU/<Kernel>[ architecture]".
>
> I don't like "Debian GNU/Unix" :
> - GNU is not Unix. Debian doesn't violate this.
> - UNIX is a trademark ?
> - UNIX is a spec (UNIX95, UNIX98), and it costs too
> much money to test Debian for this spec (and will require some work).
> - Every CD Cover etc. needs to print "Linux", "Hurd", or "Freebsd" .. anyway.
> same for the architecture.
> - Linux is a well known name, good for marketing.
>
> Andreas
>
>
Gordon already suggested "Debian GNU", which is (in my opinion) the right
name. This solves points 1, 2 and 3.
I don't think the last two points are good arguments.
David
Just a Debian user